PhilKing

You are only allowed to answer this question if you are MrFiveofDiamonds or lower. B-)

I like 1♠. It is love all at match points, after all.

Should be a snap call for anyone in the right demographic imo.

I doubt it wrong sides it very often. If we end in 3NT, perhaps we have the stop, and perhaps the relevant card is (shock), in the hand s of he opening bidder. In principle, the strong hand should be on lead versus 3NT. Meanwhile, we get to use the cue as a very distributional hand. This can be crucial if the next hand is planning a jump.

I have to admit, I quite like the Cyberyeti 2NT showing an unidentified GF one suiter.

Opportunities for this kind of bid are pretty rare. Tom Townsend brought off a beautiful example in the Lederer (and he happens to be one of the players I do a lot of work with). Yes, I do it a lot on the forum, but only once at the table (it made no difference). I do not have a precedent in any current partnership. I agree one should explain it if there were a precedent - although technically if it shows a void and asks for keycards ....

Very little is certain on this hand, and the chances of a genius auction to seven are slim. A cue bid of 5♦ will guarantee the most difficult opening lead (perhaps an underlead of the club ace). The point is that once you realise there is more to gain by punting that science, all that is left is to maximise the chance of making 6♠, and we can do that by stopping the club lead. Against MikeH I will bid something else, of course, but I am not saying what ... B-)

It's time to wheel out the most dreaded modern slam gadget - psychic exclusion RKCB. 6♣.

Double carries zero risk of playing in 4♠, because I intend to remove to 5♣. The two-step sequence shows a good flexible hand, so it puts slam in the picture. I could overcall a direct 5♣ with a lot less in the way of high cards. And I disagree slightly about the guidelines for removing the double - partner should remove to 4♠ freely on a four card suit, but remove to the five level rarely, and never without good shape.

It seems to me that playing a double here to promise 4-4 in the majors makes one the member of a lunatic cult. Why on earth would one wish to place such a bizarre restriction on the most economical call?

There is one huge anomaly - balanced 20-21 counts. They appear to perform massively better in first seat than second, yet the 18-19 and 22-23 ranges perform about the same. Anyway I'll chew it over. Maybe it's just a horrible range to define over first seat preempts. I'm prepared to listen to arguments that 424 and 382 hands is not close to enough hands to draw a firm conclusion, but a difference of 82 points a hand seems like a lot to attribute to variance.

It's about what I thought. Do I get a prize? ;)

That's the reason I did not go for 1♥ - I was really scared it would go all pass. Seriously, can you ever really envisage playing this in 3NT or 4♥? If we have a double fit in the reds, they can outbid us with Four Spades, so if we have have to go to the five level, it should be in our longest suit. I strongly believe the best approach is to just bid our most likely game and make it difficult for the opponents. I think there is a pretty good chance this will give lefty a real headache. I like scientific bidding as much as most, but this is not the time to go slow (although you could sell me a walk the dog 3♦).

Five Diamonds.

He did - click on the 2♣ bid.

I did not intend to say or imply that anyone had a low point count. Take the second auction: say you have: ♠AQ9xx ♥Kxxxx ♦Kx ♣x What do you think you can make? Partner has no major fit and does not have a slam try in clubs (he can jump to 4♣ over 2♥). ♠K ♥Qx ♦Jxx ♣AQJ9xxxx You need some luck to make four. And if partner is stronger, but without enough to jump to 4♣ on the second round he can bid five now.

I don't want to put words in Mike's mouth, but it is possible that he drew certain inferences from our singleton heart and the lack of a bid by partner over 2♦. Could it possibly be that partner is marked with length in the red suits? He appears to have five hearts, decent values (yes we can see that is not the case) and yet chose not to act. Puzzling, isn't it? The warning signs are there for anyone above a certain level. It was entirely predictable that we would end in 3♠ doubled, even when we belong in clubs.

My take is as follows: 1. All schemes where most non-shapely exploratory hands do not start with a double lack efficiency and add unnecessary complexity. You miss out on some lucrative penalties, and assuming partner removes the double, you have much more room. 2. Transfer schemes in which the suit is not guaranteed are seriously misguided (Rumpensohl). One of the main advantages of transfers is that you can hit opener hard. This does not apply after a 2♦ overcall, but say it goes 1NT-2♠-2NT-3♠ you can lose a game when opener has a big fit for for responder's suit. Anyway, my method always involves a bid of 3♠ as a shapely takeout that can't stand partner passing a takeout double, and everything else extends from there. After 1NT-2♦: 2♥♠ competitive 2NT clubs 3♣ hearts, game forcing 3♦ spades, game forcing 3♥ specifically invitational with 6 hearts 3♠ shapely take-out As RHM says, you can't do everything. My scheme cannot invite in spades, but I like the clarity of the three-level major suit transfer setting up a game force since opener can now show a fit below 3NT. Those who believe you can never play in 3NT with a major suit fit do not need this wrinkle. But regardless of that, you have much more flexibility after a 2-under transfer. Thing work a bit differently after a major suit overcall, but that is a different topic.

What did partner have?

It's quite simple the other way around - play a direct raise to 4♦ as a slam try. Now you can explore for 3NT with a cue bid without being committed to 5m when partner can't deliver.

I lead a trump. 3♥ won't always fail, but since we have no clear constructive move, the attraction of passing is much greater.

It took about 10 hours or so, I guess. But I will use the material here and there, so it's not wasted effort. Anyway, I learnt a lot doing it and it was fun as well. I intend to repeat it at some stage, but I haven't found the perfect topic. It will no doubt be a competitive theme on which there are often three plausible actions and no real consensus amongst the expert community.

This was a Roy Welland situation, so the raise was wide ranging despite the 1♥ not being limited. You should rethink your answer on this one. Not because I say so - look at who from the forum passes on this hand. For instance, karlson only passed four hands but this was one of them, and he passed board 10 as well.

Can we have the full hand please?

I've looked at a few scores and I think karlson may be the one to beat with -2450. And RHM looks to have nailed it as well and may be the winner.